'High tuition, high aid': Do California college fee hikes actually help the poor?

Demonstrations will erupt across California today as students protest the soaring cost of education — but the fury overlooks the fact that fee increases actually help poorer students by providing more money for financial aid.

The state of California is no longer subsidizing every college student's education. Instead, students whose families earn at least $70,000 per year are footing more of the bill, making it possible for students whose families earn less to pay no tuition at all.

The new "high tuition, high aid" model represents a profound shift that has taken root as California universities make good on a promise to accommodate every qualified student — even as the state faces year after year of billion-dollar deficits. Many experts say that without new taxes, there's no going back to free school for everyone.

That's bad news for students whose families earn more than $70,000 per year and will pay up to 30 percent more in tuition this year compared with last. About one-third of recent fee increases at the schools in the University of California and California State University systems go toward expansion of aid programs. The rest of the fee increases go toward instruction and student services.

Striking students disagree with the analysis. "This argument is not supported empirically," said UC-Santa Cruz graduate student Erin Ellison. "Research shows that applications from students of color decrease when tuition goes up. There is sticker shock, and they don't believe the promise of support. It is very limiting."

Advertisement

Fees at UC next year will top $11,000, while CSU's fees will be $4,827, the result of both systems raising fees 32 percent over one year. Increases in tax credits and Cal Grant programs will help some middle-income students with family incomes below $180,000, according to UC and CSU.

Canada College professor Robert Ovetz, who is helping organize local protests today, called it "a backdoor privatization of education as the state's share of its responsibility declines."

But Steve Boilard of the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office said fees are not the enemy. "They allow the subsidy of needy students," he said. A campuswide fee reduction could actually reduce access, he said, because cash-strapped schools would have to limit enrollment.

"If schools only relied on the state, they could not serve many students," he said.

Still, Boilard and other experts urged schools to create a formal fee policy, so families can budget for increases.

The state had an explicit fee policy from 1986 to 1996 that said university fee increases should be gradual, moderate and predictable — determined at least 10 months in advance and never exceeding 10 percent in a year. Since 1996, the state has had no guiding fee policy, helping to spur volatility as fee decisions were made largely in response to the state's fiscal condition.

UC and CSU were essentially free until several decades ago, with tuitions completely paid by the state. The presumption, although not written into law, was that students would pay only for incidental costs and that their tuition would be free.

But over time, students started contributing more toward their tuition. And in the most recent downturn, as the state cut its support and campuses started running out of money, students' contributions have been pushed up significantly.

And even when the economy recovers, schools may still suffer. That's because other priorities are claiming a greater share of the state budget — locked into place through ballot measures, court orders and other earmarks.

This year about 5.7 percent of the general fund goes to higher education, down from 11 percent in 1984.

The only other place to find money is through students — so their share has been rising since 2002, and most sharply in the past year.

University students now pay about one-third of the cost of their education. Community college students pay one-tenth.

"When students protest, they are protesting on behalf of low-income students — and I don't think that is justified," said William G. Tierney, professor of higher education at the University of Southern California and director of the university's Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis.

"If Stanford and Berkeley are equivalent institutions, and Stanford tuition is $50,000, why are we discounting Berkeley?" he said. "We need to make sure that those who cannot afford to go to the university have the money to go — so the lower-income and middle class should be supported by grants and loans."

"I see no justification whatsoever for giving money away to those who can afford to go to an institution that is equivalent to Stanford. It's crazy to me. We have parents who spend $20,000 a year in private high school so they can get into a good UC," he said. "We should not be subsidizing people who can afford to pay. That is bad tax policy."

For decades, California's public education was underpriced as a result of generous state support, said senior research fellow John Aubrey Douglass of UC-Berkeley's Center for Studies in Higher Education.

"It worked because there was a state subsidy," he said. "Now there is big sticker shock."

"To maintain our social contract to all students, we're taxing the wealthier families," said Douglass. "It's not the best way to do it, but it's the political reality right now."